1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anurag Tripathi learned counsel appearing for respondents.
2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is finally disposed of.
3. The petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 18.04.2017, a copy of which is Annexure-13 to the petition, by which the respondents have ordered that no salary is payable to him for the period from 02.03.2016 to 10.05.2016 is before this Court. A further prayer is for payment of arrears of salary from March 2016 to September 2016.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner, who had been appointed on the post of Seenchpal/Pattrol in the pay scale of Rs.330-381 vide order dated 11.07.1985, had been terminated on 05.08.1989. Being aggrieved with the termination order, the petitioner along with others filed Writ Petition No.7152 of 1989 (now Service Single) and the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.09.1989 permitted the petitioners to continue in service. The said writ petition was dismissed in default on 19.08.2013. Thereafter, the respondents vide order dated 02.03.2016, a copy of which is Annexure-8 to the petition, terminated the services of the petitioner. Subsequent thereto, this Court vide order dated 10.05.2016, a copy of which is Annexure-2 to the petition, restored the writ petition and also disposed it off in terms of the interim order and the petitioners of that writ petition were allowed to continue in service and were required to be paid salary till the date of superannuation.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that subsequent thereto the respondents did not pay any salary to the petitioner from 02.03.2016 till 30.09.2016 despite the fact that the termination order dated 02.03.2016 itself was withdrawn by the respondents through order dated 29.09.2016, a copy of which is Annexure-10 to the petition. It is contended that once the writ petition was restored back and disposed off in terms of the interim order consequently there was no occasion for the respondents to not pay salary to the petitioner for the aforesaid period.
6. On the other hand, Sri Anurag Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, contends that after the writ petition, in which an interim order had been passed in favour of the petitioner, had been dismissed in default on 19.08.2013 and when the said fact came to the knowledge of the respondents, they terminated the services of the petitioner through order dated 02.03.2016. Upon the writ petition being restored by this Court vide order dated 10.05.2016, the respondents subsequently set-aside the order dated 02.03.2016 vide their order dated 29.09.2016 and permitted the petitioner to work and salary has been paid subsequent thereto. As regards non-payment of salary from 02.03.2016 to 10.05.2016 which is also reflected in the impugned order dated 18.04.2017, it is contended that as the petitioner was not in regular employment and there was also no interim order in his favour during the said period as the petitioner did not carry out any work with effect from 02.03.2016 to 10.05.2016 i.e. till the date when the writ petition was restored back, as such applying the principle of 'No work no pay' and the petitioner not being working against any regular post, the salary for the said period was not paid. Thus, it is contended that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order dated 18.04.2017 by which the respondents have not paid any salary to the petitioner for the aforesaid period from 02.03.2016 to 10.05.2016.
7. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that though the respondents are trying to give some justification for non-payment of salary to the petitioner from 02.03.2016 to 10.05.2016 yet the same is unjustified inasmuch as the respondents themselves withdrew the termination order dated 02.03.2016 on 29.09.2016 as the petition had been restored vide order dated 10.05.2016 consequently there was no occasion or justification for them to not pay any salary for the aforesaid period. It is also contended that no ground is forthcoming from the side of the respondents as to why salary has not been paid to the petitioner right up to 30.09.2016 and the impugned order only talks about non-payment of salary to the petitioner from 02.03.2016 to 10.05.2016.
8. Heard learned counsel for the contesting parties and perused the records.
9. From perusal of the records, it clearly comes out that the petitioner had been working on the basis of an interim order dated 01.09.1989. The writ petition admittedly was dismissed in default on 19.08.2013. The respondents thereafter on coming to know that the writ petition has been dismissed in default proceeded to pass the termination order dated 02.03.2016. The respondents themselves, upon the writ petition being restored on 10.05.2016, have withdrawn the termination order dated 02.03.2016 on 29.09.2016 and have thereafter permitted the petitioner to resume work. Non-payment of salary from 02.03.2016 to 10.05.2016 i.e. the period when the services of the petitioner were terminated till the writ petition was restored is justified on the ground that the petitioner was not working against regular post rather had been appointed against a temporary post on temporary basis vide order dated 11.07.1985, a copy of which is Annexure-4 to the petition and he was only working on the basis of the interim order passed by the writ Court which writ petition was dismissed in default on 19.08.2013. Thus, the impugned order dated 18.04.2017 so far as it does not provide for payment of any salary to the petitioner from 02.03.2016 to 10.05.2016 is justified and valid taking into consideration that the petitioner was not working against any regular post and thus the principle of no work no pay would be applicable. Hence, no infirmity is found with the impugned order dated 18.04.2017. However, there does not appear to be any justification with the respondents nor any grounds are forthcoming as to why the salary to the petitioner from 11.05.2016 till 30.09.2016 has not been paid. As no document or any order in this regard to indicate non-payment of salary for the subsequent period from 11.05.2016 to 30.09.2016 has been annexed by the petitioner, the present petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to submit a detailed representation to respondent no.1 within a week from today for payment of his salary from 11.05.2016 to 30.09.2016. In case such representation is submitted by the petitioner within the time specified the respondent no.1 shall proceed to pass a reasoned and speaking order upon the said representation within a further period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the representation along with certified copy of this order. In case it is found that there is no legal impediment and salary is also due for the aforesaid period then the same would also be paid to the petitioner within a further period of one month. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from today.
Order Date :- 26.8.2019 A. Katiyar